About your Search

20130416
20130424
STATION
CSPAN 3
FBC 3
CSPAN2 2
MSNBCW 2
CNNW 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
LANGUAGE
English 13
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
for self-defense and for hunting and for sportsman activities. target shooting. i still go target shooting basically out my backyard in searchlight with my grandchildren. but i've always had trouble understanding why people need assault weapons to hunt or protect their homes or to target shoot. when the assault weapons ban came before the senate for a vote ten years ago, i called my friends, one in particular, who is a real advocate with -- on guns. and he said to me, you can't define an assault weapon. why are you doing this? you can't define an assault weapon. he convinced me he was right, so i voted against that. i voted against the ban. just about a month ago i called this same friend. i asked if his opinion had changed. generally no, but specifically yes, it had changed. he still opposes a ban on assault weapons. i said tell me why. i found his new reasoning absurd. and even though i care a great deal about my friend, he's headed in the wrong direction. so it caused me to reassess my position. he said do police have assault weapons? i said, yeah, some of them. he said if they have the
general, the director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense shall jointly establish and periodically review policies and procedures governing the receipt, retention, use and disclosure of nonpublicly available cyberthreat information shared with the federal government in accordance with section 1104b of the national security act of 1947 as added by section 3a of this act. such policies and procedures shall, consistent with the need to protect systems and networks from cyberthreats and mitigate cyberthreats in a timely manner, one, minimize the impact on privacy and civil liberties, two, reasonably limit the receipt, retention, use and disclosure of cyberthreat information associated with specific persons that is not necessary to protect systems or networks from cyberthreats or mitigate cyberthreats in a timely manner. three, include requirements to safeguard nonpublicly available cyberthreat information that may be used to identify specific persons from unauthorized access or acquisition. four, protect the confidentiality of cyberthreat information associated with sp
workers. absolutely zero. and defense officials may drop the furloughs entirely. homeland security has not furloughed anyone, and it has not cut overtime. so the exact impact is zero. the "washington post" gives away pinocchio's for lying. tonight we are giving dunce caps away, and we will continue to do this. elected officials to make egregiously silly statements. we think our elected officials should be so honored and noted. so we are going to award this to acquire tonight. and he earned it. i think you would agree. fellow democrat, a year from california, the head of the house democratic caucus today warned that the sequester cuts undermine the ability of our cities to respond to terrorist attacks. listen to this. >> so, when those first responders did such a phenomenal job yesterday in boston, chances are the mayor in boston is now having to figure out how to cover for the extra cost involved in having so many people out there for security and emergency medical assistance responding because they get paid so he is now probably getting money from some other part of his budget, the co
, requires the inspectors general of the intelligence community, departments of justice and defense, as well as the privacy and civil liberties board to submit a report to congress every year regarding the use of the information shared with the federal government. this amendment asks the inspector general of the department of homeland security to list enspectors general required to submit the report. it also adds the house and senate committee on homeland security to the list of committees that will receive the report. currently only the house and senate intelligence committee will receive the report. having the department of homeland security as a department included in this reporting requirement adds one more layer to this accountability. allow me to talk about the overall bill and why it has my support. i believe we need a 21st century solution for this 21st century problem. i have heard from businesses and constituents in arizona with firsthand knowledge of this issue. it's affecting both large corporations and small businesses alike. our national security, our financial security, are un
disarmament. the reaganites in the defense department were horrified by this and put a stop to it but reagan didn't go all the way with reaganism when he had a chance to end the cold war, especially the nuclear threats. so it's a hard-core republican belief. if you remember the pup pup prime -- republican primaries of 2012, it was not that long ago there were eight or ten republican candidates in simi valley for a debate at the reagan library and every one of them said reagan set the example how maring be strong, reagan did with the soviet union and we should do it today in iran, we should do it -- we were right toy trite in iraq. america should use its power to achieve its spend destroy its enemies. i worked in the cold war and in the middle east. you have 29% of the american people agree with that today. >> richard, do you want to say something? you're leaning forward. >> no. >> okay. we want to take questions from the audience if anybody has a question, and i think there's a microphone somewhere that someone is going to bring up. why don't we start right up here on the aisle, blue shirt.
know, depending on what the government was willing to say to this defense lawyer, whether or not and what benefit he might get as a result of his cooperation. remember, from the very beginning, from the president on down, everyone has said public safety is the first and highest priority. so the first question he's going to be asked is are there more devices and where are they? and, you know, and so if that were the case, i'm not suggesting it is, but it certainly is the first question you want to ask and to get to find any additional devices you would want -- you would want to give him the benefit of that cooperation. so this will have to -- it unfolds very methodically, right, the investigators have questions and in the order of the priority they're going to ask him, public safety will come first. second is to identify any additional potential conspirators who may have been involved in the planning or execution of the bombing. >> all right. fran, stand by. don't go away. we're going to continue the nonstop coverage here. our team coverage of what's going on at boston, wha
in place post-9/11 work. now it may be too late to save everyone, but it is providing a effective defense. >> in terms of the sophistication to carry out a mail attack, if you will, honestly the details around the anthrax attack are still very much -- we don't have clarity even a decade later. >> still in dispute. >> it takes a fair amount of sophistication and access to material to be able to even care something like this out. >> and anthrax is harder than ricin. anthrax to tell le weaponize it, grind it up, getting it to a place where it's effective is a bit more different than risen. ricin extracted from castor beans, this is not particularly sophisticated, but it is effective. it has to be ingested or inhaled, about you it requires somebody to at least give it some thought to sit down and produce it. >> luke, you are obviously here and not on capitol hill, but in terms of the reaction we're seeing from congress, the fact -- look, there's still legislation that they're debating at the capitol hill and it's on high alert. the question is how much it affects the proceedings. and there's
cold war world. he set up -- he set up a defense structure that cold war started with harry truman and ended with ronald reagan. and now he's considered one of the near great presidents. >> i've always found it fascinating how in realtime we build up and tear down presidents. historians do the same thing. there was a time period 20 or 30 years when historians were giving truman not much credit and there was some revisionism in the late '90s. and we've seen it with grant, with polk, we'll see it with other presidents. >> right. and you look at george bush and 30, 40 years from now, obviously our pearl harbor is 9/11. and a lot of people, historians going to say america wasn't attacked again during the rest of his term over the next seven years. and painted in broad colors, broad strokes, he's going to be judged first and foremost for that. >> what's going on in the aftermath of boston. barack obama has to start worrying about his legacy and isn't going to be enough. does he want his legacy to be i failed? are there going to be any excuses big enough for history. he's got to figure o
the bombings at the boston marathon. now his relatives are coming to his defense. they say they don't understand what could have made him turn and some believe he may have been forced by his older brother. >> doesn't make any sense. the facts don't add up. i think it's -- there has to be something we are missing or that we don't understand. >> the older brother 26-year- old tamerlan tsarnaev was killed during the manhunt, during a shoot out with police. he was an amateur boxer, married with a 3-year-old daughter. one of his aunts said that he had become a more devout muslim but none of his relatives believed that he held extremist views, though he was interviewed by the fbi back in 2011 and he was questioned about possible ties to extremists but eventually in that case he was cleared. this morning we are also learning mop about how the younger bombing suspect, the survivor spent the days after the bombings. according to one report he worked out at the gym, went to an on campus party. this morning he remains in the hospital in serious condition and has yet to be interviewed. live i
investments in defense and homeland security. that's one of the few silver linings in this terrible tragedy yesterday, it remind the american people that we still have a very dangerous threat out there that we have to be able to deal with. >> you know civil libertarians have a problem with some of that and the expansion of it. do you think the line is shifting even further? >> i would remind you that many civil libertarians have a problem with pretty much everything. >> we can do a lot more with advanced technologies without giving up our freedom. i don't think americans feel that they have to give up freedom in order to have security. >> does it change after an attack our consciousness about the threat, do you think? >> i think it would depend on what the source of this threat proves to be. if it looks like it's a foreign attack it could have one impact, if it looks like a more domestic origin then it will have perhaps a different effect. it kind of depend on the facts. >> reporter: it was interesting, bill, both those lawmakers, opening man rogers, senator levin talking about technology b
is to stabilize stocks. lot of times we conjure that side of the market. is a more defensive than with you want to call it that. tracy: this is going to continue. your job is going to be tough for a while. >> we opened the volume with volatility. tracy: what is your outlook for the rest of the week? are we going to continue to pour off into nothing more do you think this will turn around? >> there is always hope but we are trading at session lows, the volatility index is creeping up 7% right now, the s&p 500 testing 1540, support is down 1543, the 50 day moving average. is getting ugly. tracy: thank you for taking the time. adam: apple, is this a good time to buy? we will ask an analyst next. tracy: let's look at the winners and losers on the nasdaq but there are some winners. brendel resources holds up, 5.1%. we will be right back. @ tracy: apple trading below $400 for the first time since december of 2011. google reporting after hours what should you be doing now? senior analyst for chelsea advisory group here to tell us, tech stocks up 1%. what is going on? >> slowdown in europe and som
finance committee. the senate armed services committee will do an overview of defense authorization. chuck hagel will be at that as well as general martin dempsey, at that hearing. the house oversight and government reform committee is having a hearing on postal service insolvency. to find out when and where all of that will be airing, go to our website, c-span.org, for more details. chuck in massachusetts, a democrat. thought.ust a when you consider how 9/11 and brought the american public together, the last thing al qaeda would want to do would be to recreate that feeling of united ness. they like us divided. was shown as ait relatively easy, but they did in boston yesterday. like hawk-eye wanted to do something like that, they could do it relatively easily. i don't think they want to do it, because it would backfire on them. that's my thought. host: all right. that's the point of the show, to get everybody stopped and a variety of opinions this morning. one more story to give you before we go on to talk to two members of congress. poisonlope containing mailed to the senate this office,
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)